So what's next in the libel trial saga?

[Brietta]

so subtle it's impossible to see with the naked eye.

The way I am reading Alice's post is that Dr Amaral wrote his own interpretation of the report?

Do correct me if I've got that wrong, because it would suggest to me duplicity not error on his part if that is what you are saying.

[Alfred R Jones]

But how was he able to do so if he never read it in the first place? &%+((£

[Alice Purjorick]

You appear to be ignoring my original post re what Fatima Esteves apparently said and what the Appeal Court said.
Now if you wish to discuss my post on that topic fine. If you wish to play silly b*****s deal me out.

[Carana]

'twas not faith twas I . My post 20:14 11th Dec 2014 although I did not say quite what you are recalling I said

From the Appeal Court Judgement:

What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs.

All of this is reported in detailed manner in the book that is at stake here, reproducing the contents of some of the case files, which also had an effect on the above mentioned final dispatch that was signed by two Public Ministry Magistrates.

In the book, we do not verify any reference to any facts that are not in that dispatch.

Where the author differs from the Prosecutors who have written the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he does of those facts.

But of course it is bolleaux being Portuguese n all that innit  (that's irony you know, like brassy but with iron).

That doesn't mean it's a fair account, though, does it?

It sounds like saying we haven't found any flowers that aren't green. Well, possibly not, if you only consider the leaves.

There are also quite a few points touted as fact in the book that aren't in the legal summary - nor anywhere in the files, for that matter.

Did any of Amaral's witnesses state that they had read the book, watched the documentary and read the files? Someone must have done, surely... but no on jumps to mind for the moment.

[Alice Purjorick]

That doesn't mean it's a fair account, though, does it?

It sounds like saying we haven't found any flowers that aren't green. Well, possibly not, if you only consider the leaves.

There are also quite a few points touted as fact in the book that aren't in the legal summary - nor anywhere in the files, for that matter.

Did any of Amaral's witnesses state that they had read the book, watched the documentary and read the files? Someone must have done, surely... but no on jumps to mind for the moment.

From my perspective the appeal court upheld Dr Amarals argument.  Drs McCann appealed against that judgement to the Supreme Court which ruled the Appeal Courts judgement should be upheld. Drs McCann could have appealed to the European courts against the Supreme Court judgement however they chose not to. The courts have ruled and that is how it stands until overturned by a higher court.
Now whether you or I agree or disagree with that judgement is irrelevant.

[John]

There appears to be some dubiety as to the exact status of lawyer Dr Ricardo Afonso.  Astro refers to him now as the McCann children's lawyer while Dra Isabel Duarte is referred to as the parent's lawyer.  Anne Guedes on the other hand continues to refer to Afonso as Duarte's assistant.  The latter would by implication infer that Alfonso is employed by Duarte.

Can anyone shed some light on this as it is important that only factual information is posted here?  TY

[Mr Gray]

From my perspective the appeal court upheld Dr Amarals argument.  Drs McCann appealed against that judgement to the Supreme Court which ruled the Appeal Courts judgement should be upheld. Drs McCann could have appealed to the European courts against the Supreme Court judgement however they chose not to. The courts have ruled and that is how it stands until overturned by a higher court.
Now whether you or I agree or disagree with that judgement is irrelevant.

First you would have to tell us what amaral's argument was...that is the crux.....my understanding was the injunction banning the book was overturned because there were no grounds to ban the book...libel at that point had not been proved and therefore there were no grounds to ban the book..


Some on here suggest that the libel/defamation issue has been decided by the court in amarals favour....I'm fairly sure it has not. All the Portuguese papers refer to the current trial as  a defamation trial and I would expect them to know.

[Mr Gray]

From my perspective the appeal court upheld Dr Amarals argument.  Drs McCann appealed against that judgement to the Supreme Court which ruled the Appeal Courts judgement should be upheld. Drs McCann could have appealed to the European courts against the Supreme Court judgement however they chose not to. The courts have ruled and that is how it stands until overturned by a higher court.
Now whether you or I agree or disagree with that judgement is irrelevant.

The court ruling overturning the injunction posted on the Morais site has several serious errors...It states that Eddie alerted to cadaver odour on the keyfob. This is not factual and this sort of error leads me to believe that the reported judgement is not accurate

[Anna]

There appears to be some dubiety as to the exact status of lawyer Dr Ricardo Afonso.  Astro refers to him now as the McCann children's lawyer while Dra Isabel Duarte is referred to as the parent's lawyer.  Anne Guedes on the other hand continues to refer to Afonso as Duarte's assistant.  The latter would by implication infer that Alfonso is employed by Duarte.

Can anyone shed some light on this as it is important that only factual information is posted here?  TY

Contradictions.....everywhere I looked. Afonso did stand in for Duarte at another hearing, but the extra note by Astra, who was in the courtroom on Wednesday, reveals that he had only found out that he was the children's Lawyer, on that day.


Only his half of the evidence on behalf of the children, was given and not Duarte's, as I understood it.

The press and blogs have a mixture of Children's lawyer on some and McCann's lawyer on others.
The children are McCann, so McCann's Lawyer is correct, in description.


This is Astro's forenote on Gerrymcannblog ....He was present in court

..........................................................

But first, a little detail that escaped me until today: Isabel Duarte is the lawyer for the McCann couple while Dr Ricardo Afonso is the lawyer for the children.


 What does this mean? It means that we were going to be subject to allegations by Isabel for 1.5 hours and allegations by Ricardo Afonso for another 1.5 hours.



 Isabel wasn't able to attend today's session, which means we only had to go through one half speeches. Still, Ricardo Afonso had to cut his allegations short by what I estimate was one-third as he ran out of time and the judge had to cut him short.



 We got a different court room today, not the usual one. This one was less freezing... And on the wall, just above the judge, this quote: "A injustica feita a um é ameaca para todos". Injustice done to one [person] is a threat to everyone.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/92dec14/Astro_10_12_2014.htm

[Mr Gray]

it seems that amarals book is out of print..i.e.   no longer being published...it's about time some people woke up to the truth....the verdict will be here soon...amaral guilty of defamation...let's see how posters spin that one

[DCI]

Contradictions.....everywhere I looked. Afonso did stand in for Duarte at another hearing, but the extra note by Astra, who was in the courtroom on Wednesday, reveals that he had only found out that he was the children's Lawyer, on that day.


Only his half of the evidence on behalf of the children, was given and not Duarte's, as I understood it.

The press and blogs have a mixture of Children's lawyer on some and McCann's lawyer on others.
The children are McCann, so McCann's Lawyer is correct, in description.


This is Astro's forenote on Gerrymcannblog ....He was present in court

..........................................................

But first, a little detail that escaped me until today: Isabel Duarte is the lawyer for the McCann couple while Dr Ricardo Afonso is the lawyer for the children.


 What does this mean? It means that we were going to be subject to allegations by Isabel for 1.5 hours and allegations by Ricardo Afonso for another 1.5 hours.



 Isabel wasn't able to attend today's session, which means we only had to go through one half speeches. Still, Ricardo Afonso had to cut his allegations short by what I estimate was one-third as he ran out of time and the judge had to cut him short.



 We got a different court room today, not the usual one. This one was less freezing... And on the wall, just above the judge, this quote: "A injustica feita a um é ameaca para todos". Injustice done to one [person] is a threat to everyone.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/92dec14/Astro_10_12_2014.htm

Yes many contradictions.


Last year according to Anne Guedes he was the The McCann’s substitute lawyer,
 
 
 I would say he is an associate by this.
Isabel Duarte & Associados-sociedade De Advogados Rl


I found this interesting


Here  RCA is trying to show that neither Mark Harrison (who spoke of intelligence, nothing else), nor Martin Grime (who spoke of contamination, nothing else) nor Stuart Prior supported the decision to make the McCanns arguidos. He mentions the EVRD's discoveries in the McCann flat, examines the handler's report that, contrary to the book, says that no human residues were localised and interprets the unsupported evidence as intending to manipulate. The statements of the British experts were wrongly interpreted by the Portuguese investigators and the result was the arguido statute imposed on the McCanns, as it is suggested by the then head of the PJ, AlípioRibeiro.

[Anna]

Yes many contradictions.


Last year according to Anne Guedes he was the The McCann’s substitute lawyer,
 
 
 I would say he is an associate by this.
Isabel Duarte & Associados-sociedade De Advogados Rl


I found this interesting


Here  RCA is trying to show that neither Mark Harrison (who spoke of intelligence, nothing else), nor Martin Grime (who spoke of contamination, nothing else) nor Stuart Prior supported the decision to make the McCanns arguidos. He mentions the EVRD's discoveries in the McCann flat, examines the handler's report that, contrary to the book, says that no human residues were localised and interprets the unsupported evidence as intending to manipulate. The statements of the British experts were wrongly interpreted by the Portuguese investigators and the result was the arguido statute imposed on the McCanns, as it is suggested by the then head of the PJ, AlípioRibeiro.

Thank you, DCI.
  So he is an associate of Duarte.

The other info is indeed very interesting.

[pegasus]

it seems that amarals book is out of print..i.e.   no longer being published...it's about time some people woke up to the truth....the verdict will be here soon...amaral guilty of defamation...let's see how posters spin that one

Perhaps we could compare with some other cases where top PR and top lawyers have been paid to mount a destroy at all costs campaign against a detective? I think you will find your list is so short you are unable to post it.

[Mr Gray]

Perhaps we could compare with some other cases where top PR and top lawyers have been paid to mount a destroy at all costs campaign against a detective? I think you will find your list is so short you are unable to post it.

amaral has destroyed himself....convicted of complicity in the torture of a suspect....featured on the amnesty website...sacked from the investigation...open your eyes

[Jean-Pierre]

Perhaps we could compare with some other cases where top PR and top lawyers have been paid to mount a destroy at all costs campaign against a detective? I think you will find your list is so short you are unable to post it.

Amaral is not a detective. 

So your smartarse comment falls at the first hurdle.